ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Library => Topic started by: LionPride32 on 2013-11-19, 01:07:57
-
Evening, gents!
I was wondering what anyone else has to say about Ridley Scott's depiction of 12th/13th century England in his film Robin Hood??
The first time I watched it I was hooked. Danny Huston's portayal of an older Richard I was great, in my opinion! The siege of Chalus castle at the beginning was a great action opener, but it was too short. I think that's what the films only major downfall is...battle scenes not long enough! And I'm appalled to find THIS version of "Robin Hood" in the $5 !? Wtf I say!!
I am a proud owner of the movies's King Richard Sword by Windlass steelcrafts. I olan on reveiwing it in the armor section.
-
I think I'm one of the few people who liked that movie. The armor is pretty bad for the time period, but I really enjoyed the story and the action. I thought it was a cool direction to go with the Robin Hood story.
-
I'm hooked on it, ya there are some armor things but the movie was really good. I think it takes up from were the old tale ended. Robin had gone with Richard to crusade more and in this one the original robin of loxly dies, and basically a new one takes his place this time dealing with something like the barons war. This also makes sense because in the original Robin Hood tale john was sitting on the throne until Richard returned due to his ransom. "Loxly and bagel it's a can't miss"
-
I'm also a MAJOR eagle-eye for movie mistakes. RH has many right off the bat... The beginning titles state that Richard the Lionheart is plundering his way back to England after TEN YEARS on crusade....uhhhhh NO. He was on the Third Crusade for almost two years, and he'd already been back to Europe for years before his death. The titles also state that its the turn of the 12th century, but 1199 going into 1200 would be the turn of the 13th century. Also factually Richard was killed by a boy, not an adult cook, though it is entertaining (.Look!! I killed the king!!) In that very army fighting along Richard and Loxley is where I envision myself. I point all these mistakes out to my girlfriend and she just shakes her head and asks why I care so much...
Lol....
-
Still prefer the one with Uma Thurman.
-
There was one w/Uma Thurman? Oh, the one w/Patrick Bergin. I haven't seen it in its entirety as of yet. I'm a fan of the Costner one, just because it was an excellent example of a swashbuckler epic. However, I think this one, Ridley Scott's version is my current favorite.
-
I enjoyed the story very much, and thought it was an interesting take on the Robin Hood story. But as with any film, you have to ignore all the historical mistakes. What makes me smile though is when they get a few things right.
For instance, in this version, when Marion (Cate Blanchett) is serving food and drink on Robin's first visit to their home, she's cutting the wine with water (which they did), and in a statement of disdain/distrust, only pours water for Robin. It's a subtle detail, but speaks volumes if you know what you're looking at.
-
I enjoyed the movie as well. I've given up the hope that Hollywood will ever get it historically correct and just switch that part of mind off because even the medieval genre movie is much preferable to any Twilight movie. - Except maybe the horrendous movie 'In the Name of the King'. ;)
-
Awww, you didn't like In the Name of the King, Sir Brian? The script was so awful as to be unintentionally hilarious, not to mention Boll made almost no use of the star talent he managed to get (Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies, Jason Statham, Lee Lee Sobieski, Kristanna Loken, et al) so it was like each one had decided to play their character one way or another (humorous, serious, doleful, angry, etc) and none seemed to go well together. Decent action scenes though.
-
I enjoyed the movie as well. I've given up the hope that Hollywood will ever get it historically correct and just switch that part of mind off because even the medieval genre movie is much preferable to any Twilight movie. - Except maybe the horrendous movie 'In the Name of the King'. ;)
I liked "In the Name of the King", the first one, but I'm quite partial to Leelee Sobieski after her Joan of Arc. ;) The second ITNOTK was dreadful - with Dolph Lundgren, who I really liked in Showdown in Little Tokyo - but perhaps half my enjoyment of that movie was Tia Carrere too.
Apparently I rate movie enjoyment in part based on the female actors.
Evening, gents!
I was wondering what anyone else has to say about Ridley Scott's depiction of 12th/13th century England in his film Robin Hood??
The first time I watched it I was hooked. Danny Huston's portayal of an older Richard I was great, in my opinion! The siege of Chalus castle at the beginning was a great action opener, but it was too short. I think that's what the films only major downfall is...battle scenes not long enough! And I'm appalled to find THIS version of "Robin Hood" in the $5 !? Wtf I say!!
I am a proud owner of the movies's King Richard Sword by Windlass steelcrafts. I olan on reveiwing it in the armor section.
I didn't care for the, what seemed to me, random insertion of the masons/stonemasons of his father. I don't think it added anything to the story, and it made me feel like they wanted to throw in some random conspiracy theory or intrigue.
I also didn't care at all for the "let me just pop up out of this water and shoot my soaking wet bow and arrow a half mile down the beach into this dude's neck". I let the terrible armor go, I let the combat go.. but that archery bit just irked me badly. Possibly since I've done archery since I was a kid, and it felt like it took Robin Hood from plausible historical legend to outright lunacy.
Aside from those, it was decent. I had a new appreciation for the things they did do right with the movie after watching a "behind the scenes" interview with Crowe about the intent of the movie. I think it's on YouTube, I caught it on History Channel.
-
I've never really been into archery, so what would happen with a wet bow and arrow? Lol sounds silly asking, but would it bing wet hinder the accuracy of the arrow? Anyway, I guess if your too much of a stickler for historical accuracy, if you nitpick everything you can never enjoy the film your watching. That goes for any kind of movie.
-
I've never really been into archery, so what would happen with a wet bow and arrow? Lol sounds silly asking, but would it bing wet hinder the accuracy of the arrow? Anyway, I guess if your too much of a stickler for historical accuracy, if you nitpick everything you can never enjoy the film your watching. That goes for any kind of movie.
A wet string is heavy and has improper "let off", which makes the arrow fire slower and softer too. It is also more likely to snap. A wet arrow will absorb water and be heavier, being less accurate, and not flying as far or as fast. The fletching (feathers) will also affect it's flight. Nothing "historical" to that, it still happens even with modern bows and modern arrows - unless you are talking about steel arrows, plastic feathers, and compound bows with steel cables instead of string. Even a modern longbow suffers the same issues.
It did have a large effect historically, too. In Japan, after the country opened up a bit and allowed others to come in, they started trading for firearms. Some of the samurai took to them right away, discarding their bows. Not all of them, though. And some of those samurai learned that early firearms were inferior to traditional bows in some instances. The black powder could get wet, or misfire. Wet arrows and strings had to dry out or they had high miss and failure rates. The guns could rust quickly in the humid climate, and couldn't be lacquered like their armor and arrows could. As the tech advanced, guns became superior in every aspect, and the bow finally faded away in combat - kept alive only in the Kyudo tradition.
I'm pretty good about separating the history in movies. Ironclad wasn't accurate. Black Death wasn't accurate. A Knight's Tale isn't accurate. Black Knight isn't accurate. Excalibur isn't accurate. I still enjoy all of those movies. :) I liked a lot of Robin Hood. I still bought the DVD. Just a few things in it that really chewed at me since it was *trying* to be historical but had such a glaring "seriously?!" moment as the climax.
-
I've never really been into archery, so what would happen with a wet bow and arrow? Lol sounds silly asking, but would it bing wet hinder the accuracy of the arrow? Anyway, I guess if your too much of a stickler for historical accuracy, if you nitpick everything you can never enjoy the film your watching. That goes for any kind of movie.
A wet string is heavy and has improper "let off", which makes the arrow fire slower and softer too. It is also more likely to snap. A wet arrow will absorb water and be heavier, being less accurate, and not flying as far or as fast. The fletching (feathers) will also affect it's flight. Nothing "historical" to that, it still happens even with modern bows and modern arrows - unless you are talking about steel arrows, plastic feathers, and compound bows with steel cables instead of string. Even a modern longbow suffers the same issues.
It did have a large effect historically, too. In Japan, after the country opened up a bit and allowed others to come in, they started trading for firearms. Some of the samurai took to them right away, discarding their bows. Not all of them, though. And some of those samurai learned that early firearms were inferior to traditional bows in some instances. The black powder could get wet, or misfire. Wet arrows and strings had to dry out or they had high miss and failure rates. The guns could rust quickly in the humid climate, and couldn't be lacquered like their armor and arrows could. As the tech advanced, guns became superior in every aspect, and the bow finally faded away in combat - kept alive only in the Kyudo tradition.
I'm pretty good about separating the history in movies. Ironclad wasn't accurate. Black Death wasn't accurate. A Knight's Tale isn't accurate. Black Knight isn't accurate. Excalibur isn't accurate. I still enjoy all of those movies. :) I liked a lot of Robin Hood. I still bought the DVD. Just a few things in it that really chewed at me since it was *trying* to be historical but had such a glaring "seriously?!" moment as the climax.
Well if we made our own ending to the film the arrow will fly about 50 feet, and hit king john instead. Lol
-
Well from what I've read, a movie that is notoriousl innacurate is "Braveheart". I can watch it over and over and not get sick of it lol. "Braveheart", "Kingdom of Heaven" and R.S. "Robin Hood" are my top 3 never-get-sick-of medieval movies.
-
Well from what I've read, a movie that is notoriousl innacurate is "Braveheart". I can watch it over and over and not get sick of it lol. "Braveheart", "Kingdom of Heaven" and R.S. "Robin Hood" are my top 3 never-get-sick-of medieval movies.
You and me are going to get along very well.
-
Star Wars isn't very historicly accurate so I am told. For example, ships don't make noise in space.
-
George Lucas with Industrial Light & Magic disagrees whole-heartedly with that notion. He says space did not exist in any form until he came along to make it what it is.
-
George Lucas with Industrial Light & Magic disagrees whole-heartedly with that notion. He says space did not exist in any form until he came along to make it what it is.
Ya and Darth vader is Lukes father. what a joke.
-
George Lucas with Industrial Light & Magic disagrees whole-heartedly with that notion. He says space did not exist in any form until he came along to make it what it is.
Ya and Darth vader is Lukes father. what a joke.
Well they have a lot of evidence to support it. They do know that Padmai had to children. One was Luke, they suspect the other was Leia but they would have been separate immediately after birth. I think they are twins though.
-
Well from what I've read, a movie that is notoriousl innacurate is "Braveheart". I can watch it over and over and not get sick of it lol. "Braveheart", "Kingdom of Heaven" and R.S. "Robin Hood" are my top 3 never-get-sick-of medieval movies.
As good as Braveheart is, it bears very little resemblance to history. :)
-
lol
-
Well from what I've read, a movie that is notoriousl innacurate is "Braveheart". I can watch it over and over and not get sick of it lol. "Braveheart", "Kingdom of Heaven" and R.S. "Robin Hood" are my top 3 never-get-sick-of medieval movies.
As good as Braveheart is, it bears very little resemblance to history. :)
History is written by those who hang heros. Thats why the movie told the true story. Obviously. 😜
-
I was reading about the historical accuracy of "Braveheart and it states that the Scottish didn't wear kilts in that time period....Kinda funny as I can't picture the Scottish wearing anything but!! I have mixed feelings about the portrayal of King Edward I "Longshanks"... He was definetly a warrior king, much like Richard I, I suppose as he got older he didn't charge into the frey of battle. I love when he orders the archers to shoot and his General says, "Won't we hit our men, sire?" And Longshanks replies, "Yes....but we'll hit theirs as well. We've got reserves!" Heheheh I love the Plantagents!!
-
They also called Longshanks a "ruthless Pagan" which I am almost sure was incorrect. Question is, why is he called Longshanks may I ask? I might have to look that up.
-
Question is, why is he called Longshanks may I ask? I might have to look that up.
Because he was tall. "Shanks" refer to legs. I also hear he was always picked first to play for the Kingdom of England's basketball team. ;)
-
Question is, why is he called Longshanks may I ask? I might have to look that up.
Because he was tall. "Shanks" refer to legs. I also hear he was always picked first to play for the Kingdom of England's basketball team. ;)
He shanked people. (the act of pulling down ones pants)
It's a pagan thing.
Englands basketball team quickly conquered the celtics
-
I was reading a historians look on Kingdom of heaven.
http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/essay029.htm (http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/essay029.htm)
-
He is primarily called Robin Longstride (presumably for legs/stride as well). I haven't heard "Longshanks" aside from this version.
-
He is primarily called Robin Longstride (presumably for legs/stride as well). I haven't heard "Longshanks" aside from this version.
He was talking about Edward I in that case. :)
-
I was reading about the historical accuracy of "Braveheart and it states that the Scottish didn't wear kilts in that time period....Kinda funny as I can't picture the Scottish wearing anything but!!
That's right, kilts didn't appear until a few centuries later. William Wallace actually would have looked more like a knight of the period. I've attached an image of a statue of him that is in Edinburgh Castle:
-
That's right, kilts didn't appear until a few centuries later. William Wallace actually would have looked more like a knight of the period. I've attached an image of a statue of him that is in Edinburgh Castle:
Yes, the English and Scots would have looked relatively the same on the battlefield from what I understand.
-
That's right, kilts didn't appear until a few centuries later. William Wallace actually would have looked more like a knight of the period. I've attached an image of a statue of him that is in Edinburgh Castle:
Yes, the English and Scots would have looked relatively the same on the battlefield from what I understand.
Well even though they didn't wear kilt, William Wallace had the wrong pattern on his kilt. As some of you may know, like we have family heraldic crests, the clans of Scotland had kilt patterns. I actually have a book on that. Also having the same equipment is debatable. They were just farmers and peasants. I mean maybe they took gear from The British.
-
That's just it. A lot of them weren't farmers and peasants. William Wallace was a noble, not a highland peasant like in the movie. Also, the standardizing of tartan clan patterns wasn't a development until the 18th century or somewhere thereabouts.
-
That's just it. A lot of them weren't farmers and peasants. William Wallace was a noble, not a highland peasant like in the movie. Also, the standardizing of tartan clan patterns wasn't a development until the 18th century or somewhere thereabouts.
Hm... Fascinating. *pulls out a pipe* I did not know that. *puffs out smoke* This is why we have these conversations. I'll look up when tartens developed certain patterns. And also, lets just appreciate how fun the movie is to watch and the sound track of it.
-
That's just it. A lot of them weren't farmers and peasants. William Wallace was a noble, not a highland peasant like in the movie. Also, the standardizing of tartan clan patterns wasn't a development until the 18th century or somewhere thereabouts.
Yep. Common misconception, just like "family heraldry". No such thing as "standard/common clan tartan".
-
I actually find the very first opening music of Bravheart (plays while the Paramount logo is shown) to be....kind of creepy. I actually HADN'T seen kit until this past summer when I really plunged headfirst into my medieval studies. Picked up the Braveheart/Gladiator 2 disc at Wal-Mart ;) sweet deal for $10!!!
-
What no army of darkness?
I actually find the very first opening music of Bravheart (plays while the Paramount logo is shown) to be....kind of creepy. I actually HADN'T seen kit until this past summer when I really plunged headfirst into my medieval studies. Picked up the Braveheart/Gladiator 2 disc at Wal-Mart ;) sweet deal for $10!!!
I actually find the very first opening music of Bravheart (plays while the Paramount logo is shown) to be....kind of creepy. I actually HADN'T seen kit until this past summer when I really plunged headfirst into my medieval studies. Picked up the Braveheart/Gladiator 2 disc at Wal-Mart ;) sweet deal for $10!!!
I actually find the very first opening music of Bravheart (plays while the Paramount logo is shown) to be....kind of creepy. I actually HADN'T seen kit until this past summer when I really plunged headfirst into my medieval studies. Picked up the Braveheart/Gladiator 2 disc at Wal-Mart ;) sweet deal for $10!!!
-
You know, I'm quite embarrassed to say this, but I'm a bigger HORROR flick fan than medieval fan, and I HAVE NEVER seen Army of Darkness! Just the Evil Dead part 1 original.....yikes! My secret is out!!!
-
You know, I'm quite embarrassed to say this, but I'm a bigger HORROR flick fan than medieval fan, and I HAVE NEVER seen Army of Darkness! Just the Evil Dead part 1 original.....yikes! My secret is out!!!
There will be blood.
-
You know, I'm quite embarrassed to say this, but I'm a bigger HORROR flick fan than medieval fan, and I HAVE NEVER seen Army of Darkness! Just the Evil Dead part 1 original.....yikes! My secret is out!!!
There will be blood.
May the headless hunt begin! Haha but you should see Army of Darkness you'll love it.
-
Well I've seen "Evil Dead" part 1, the original. Ill have to track down the AOD dvd, I know a friend who's got it. In other news, I'm thinking about putting in my application for the Order. I've been trying -LIKE HELL -to post pics here, but I can't figure it out...(no pc right now, blegh). If anyone WOULD like to see my beginners getup, Ill direct you to my Facebook page, I have pics there. I would think I'm almost ready.......??? It would be a fantastic start for the new year!! 2014!!!!
-
I've been trying -LIKE HELL -to post pics here, but I can't figure it out...(no pc right now, blegh). If anyone WOULD like to see my beginners getup, Ill direct you to my Facebook page, I have pics there.
Can you link them here from Facebook via the [*img*] tags? Like:
[*img*] photo url here [*/img*] (but without the *)
I don't have an internet-connected phone, so I don't know if you can do that with one. Forgive my ignorance if you already tried that. ;)
-
Important note: the original Evil Dead is the one to watch before Army of Darkness. There was an Evil Dead remake/reboot that came out earlier this year, and while it's similar, it is not the same. It has at least one critical difference that I noticed, and makes Army of Darkness completely non-sequential with the remake.
If you post a link to your facebook page, just copy/paste the URL. The software automatically converts it into a clickable link.
-
What's funny is that Evil Dead 1 and Evil Dead 2 were almost the same movie. Same story, same protagonist. But if I recall, Evil Dead 2 is the one that got a little more tongue-in-cheek and directly leads into Army of Darkness.
-
But the best of all is Evil Dead 1, 2 and Army of Darkness has lots of Bruce Campbell goodness! ;)
-
ya 2 was 1 with a bigger budget lol
-
Shop Smart! Shop S Mart!
-
But the best of all is Evil Dead 1, 2 and Army of Darkness has lots of Bruce Campbell goodness! ;)
He made those movies enjoyable.
Especially army of darkness and evil dead 2.
Plus I haven't seen the first evil dead.
-
What's funny is that Evil Dead 1 and Evil Dead 2 were almost the same movie. Same story, same protagonist. But if I recall, Evil Dead 2 is the one that got a little more tongue-in-cheek and directly leads into Army of Darkness.
Ah! And Evil Dead 2 is on Netflix.. and added to queue. Army of Darkness isn't, but, I bet some creative eBay/Walmart $5 bin digging might solve that. :)
-
Jeff Hedgecock did a lot of the armor for Army of Darkness :)
-
The end of evil dead 2 and the beggining of army is darkness are slightly different.
Other than all the soldiers at the end of evil dead 2 having plastic full plate armor and the ones in army if darkness having late 13th and early 14 the armor. Well it wasn't really a specific armor.
-
I'm sure the best way to find out would just be to simply watch it, but how does "evil dead" being a demon possesion horror movie to "army of darkness", with a campy medieval twist?
-
B
I'm sure the best way to find out would just be to simply watch it, but how does "evil dead" being a demon possesion horror movie to "army of darkness", with a campy medieval twist?
Because when you base ancient evils roots to the Middle Ages
And make a movie during a time when medieval stuff and horror stuff is really popular. Oh and time travel, und, und... Vany veasions herr lionpride.
-
I'm sure the best way to find out would just be to simply watch it, but how does "evil dead" being a demon possesion horror movie to "army of darkness", with a campy medieval twist?
Evil Dead 2 is more of a campy remake of the first Evil Dead than an actual sequel. It ends with Ash replacing his hand with a chainsaw, and falling through a time portal into the medieval period, along with his car. Army of Darkness picks up right where that left off, and is a more serious attempt at a comedic campy movie.
-
...and is a more serious attempt at a comedic campy movie.
:)
-
I'm sure the best way to find out would just be to simply watch it, but how does "evil dead" being a demon possesion horror movie to "army of darkness", with a campy medieval twist?
Evil Dead 2 is more of a campy remake of the first Evil Dead than an actual sequel. It ends with Ash replacing his hand with a chainsaw, and falling through a time portal into the medieval period, along with his car. Army of Darkness picks up right where that left off, and is a more serious attempt at a comedic campy movie.
Let's not forget Bruce is welcomed as a hero in the Middle Ages at the end of evil dead 2. And all the knights have plastic fills sets of armor, then at the start of army of darkness Bruce is captured, and is surrounded by more early 14th century armored(actual armor)time accurate soldiers.
-
I'm sure the best way to find out would just be to simply watch it, but how does "evil dead" being a demon possesion horror movie to "army of darkness", with a campy medieval twist?
Evil Dead 2 is more of a campy remake of the first Evil Dead than an actual sequel. It ends with Ash replacing his hand with a chainsaw, and falling through a time portal into the medieval period, along with his car. Army of Darkness picks up right where that left off, and is a more serious attempt at a comedic campy movie.
Let's not forget Bruce is welcomed as a hero in the Middle Ages at the end of evil dead 2. And all the knights have plastic fills sets of armor, then at the start of army of darkness Bruce is captured, and is surrounded by more early 14th century armored(actual armor)time accurate soldiers.
Just saw Evil Dead 2 right now. Boy, the 80s were cheesy by modern standards, but I still enjoyed it. Not as much as most modern movies, but it was still a fun one. I see exactly how they link together now. Kinda cool. Now to find Army of Darkness at Walmart or something... Netflix doesn't have it. :(
-
Army of Darkness was the best of the three. Classic Bruce Campbell! :)
You'll love it! :)
-
Army of Darkness was the best of the three. Classic Bruce Campbell! :)
You'll love it! :)
+1
I really think of Army of Darkness as it's own movie now. Yes it's technically a continuation of Evil Dead 2, but it really stands up by itself, and it's pure awesome!
-
yupyup.
probably were born in a barn......
-
It is actually funny seeing the transition between the movies to Army of Darkness
-
Army of Darkness was the best of the three. Classic Bruce Campbell! :)
You'll love it! :)
+1
I really think of Army of Darkness as it's own movie now. Yes it's technically a continuation of Evil Dead 2, but it really stands up by itself, and it's pure awesome!
Absolutely! It's absolutely a classic.
And of course, it has some great one-liners, some of which were later immortalized by Duke Nukem. :)